The reason that I think that there are atheists who avoid the results of historical research such as the fact of Jesus crucifixion is because I have spoken to atheists who go to bizarre lengths to avoid dealing with it. Some have told me it was all made up hundreds of years later by contantine, Jesus was an alien etc. graybeard Why did you yourself try to deny the crucifixion above?

Greybeard I don't agree that "a death is necessary for a crucifixion" Jesus was only on the cross for a few hours. Crucifixions take three to four days and the person dies of exhaustion.

The reason that I think that there are atheists who avoid the results of historical research such as the fact of Jesus crucifixion.....

The fact? Please......explain.

Quote

......is because I have spoken to atheists who go to bizarre lengths to avoid dealing with it. Some have told me it was all made up hundreds of years later by Constantine.

So? You have spoken to a couple of non-theists who have said such things; what does that mean or matter? Not only are atheists not an organization or "belief system", but if we were, how did these few people you spoke with get to be our spokesperson?

They were partly correct though; not one thing was recorded during the alleged time of the alleged Jesus character's life. Remember that, not one thing. We have manufactured an impression of a Jesus character through time (and Hollywood has helped), but what was written about him was indeed something like 30-120 years after his alleged death. Not exactly something I'd want to organize my life around, unless I was a mindless follower of the masses.

And yes, the wee little cult that was Christianity would have evaporated (like all the others) in short order if Constantine didn't make it the official religion under his rule. And you might want to do some research as to why he did that.

I agree with everything you say in each paragraph except the point that I thought anyone was a spokesperson for a whole group. I only said that there are some atheists who have irrational emotion beliefs and deny everything out of hand and so I gave some examples to prove it. What I am saying is there are nut cases who say it is all true and there are nut cases who say it is all false. I find that such people have remarkably similar personalities and when they start talking I check they are not carrying a gun.

I wish that more atheists were involved in biblical research since the historical method supports atheism rather than Christianity.

The problem is that there are both Christians and atheists who are hostile to what has been discovered in the last hundred and fifty years. You yourself seem to deny everything out of hand if I am reading you correctly. I would like this to be my last post in this section.

The reason that I think that there are atheists who avoid the results of historical research such as the fact of Jesus crucifixion is because I have spoken to atheists who go to bizarre lengths to avoid dealing with it.

Bizarre lengths?...like a second source at minimum?

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I think some atheists do fear to admit that there was a crucifixion because they think it necessarily implies a resurrection.

Please show me atheists who state this.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

The discussion on this section has been informative for me on how some people form their views. I think I have learned something new from it. Thanks to all who have argued with me. Life is too short to repeat the same arguments over and over. Maybe I will discuss the sources later.

You will then understand why many that have been atheists for years no longer find any of the details in the Bible interesting. Newly born atheists are more interested in debate. When I made the leap of faith into militant intolerant atheist, as opposed to "i don't know or care", I read the four gospels and a few of Paul's letters.

The discussion on this section has been informative for me on how some people form their views. I think I have learned something new from it. Thanks to all who have argued with me. Life is too short to repeat the same arguments over and over. Maybe I will discuss the sources later.

"I have a response but not right now, but I do have some time for some sneering condescension."

Ohh look everyone, it is time for that post...again. Do you think we haven't heard that before? At least two dozen times before?

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I wish that more atheists were involved in biblical research since the historical method supports atheism rather than Christianity.

From the context, it sounds as if you feel that the historical method and Biblical research are at odds with each other. This raises the question of how great the divide is, and where they conflict.

If I had to guess, though, I'd say that secular historians try to fit newly-discovered writings and archaeological artifacts into a timeline of known events, but that Biblical scholars work backwards from events described in the Bible and try to find writings and artifacts to substantiate them.

I wish that more atheists were involved in biblical research since the historical method supports atheism rather than Christianity.

I don't need that much information to be an atheist. It isn't a specialty. I'm not after a PhD in the field. Where would I draw the line? Am I supposed to give equal study to christianity, zoroastrianism, voodoo and whatever it was that Klingon's worshipped? Or can I just use my common sense, look at the commonality of all religions (excuses, excuses, excuses) and just dismiss them outright, without having an armload of specifics?

The reason I said that I wish more atheists were involved in biblical research is because I think knowledge gives a firmer foundation for atheism than a feeling.

As for sources, two were asked for. Here is more. Each of the four gospels were written at different times and places and have different cultural backgrounds behind them. They partly used the same text which you would expect from a writer who was looking for information. In addition to these there are bunch of letters written by different people to different places. It is easier to explain these as arising from an historical event than from the creation of a myth at that moment, although mythical elements were later added.

I have never been anything but an atheist so I have no axe to grind by saying either it is either all true or all false.

The reason I said that I wish more atheists were involved in biblical research is because I think knowledge gives a firmer foundation for atheism than a feeling.

As for sources, two were asked for. Here is more. Each of the four gospels were written at different times and places and have different cultural backgrounds behind them. They partly used the same text which you would expect from a writer who was looking for information. In addition to these there are bunch of letters written by different people to different places. It is easier to explain these as arising from an historical event than from the creation of a myth at that moment, although mythical elements were later added.

I have never been anything but an atheist so I have no axe to grind by saying either it is either all true or all false.

However, if we look at the actual research of the compilation of Grimm's fairie tales, there are multiple versions of the the same general story arising in various locations across central and eastern Europe.That these tale vary and have multiple authors lends no veracity that the characters involved actually existed. When these oral tales were recorded by Grimm, that really doesn't mean a second source. A second source would involve a complete account not showing it was informed by the same sources as Grimm.

I personally feel that there was an Jewish heretic named Jesus and all sorts of tales coalesced around him, not dissimilar to King Shango of Africa. However we cannot even be sure of this heretics execution as all the records were written down at least 40 years after the supposed incidents. And given the documents were entrusted to a power structure invested in both aggrandizing them and discounting naysayers, we cannot say for sure Jesus did a single thing mentioned in the Gospels. There isn't a second source.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I agree in general with your second paragraph except on the point that there was a power structure. The only reason that Christianity developed at all was because there was no power structure to prevent people forming their own interpretations. It would have remained purely Jewish. (See the arguments in Paul's letters.) There were originally many different christianities, each gospel contains a different one. Only later as a power structure developed were some of the early christianities included in the bible. Other types of Christianity such as gnosticism were excluded completely.